Hall, Walsh, and Yates (2000) report the results of a survey of 654 UK companies in 1995 carried out by the Bank of England, and mostly of large companies in manufacturing (68% of the survey), as well as some in services (13%), retailing (13%), and construction (6%) (Hall, Walsh, and Yates 2000: 426–428).

The survey asked firms if they recognised a specific “pricing theory as being important” for explaining their pricing behaviour. It was found that 47.1% of firms chose cost-based pricing as the second most important theory (the theory of constant marginal costs came first at 53.8%).

Greenslade and Parker (2012) report the results of a new survey of 693 UK firms (conducted in December 2007 and February 2008) chosen to be representative of the private sector economy of the UK as a whole, including manufacturing, electricity and gas supply, construction, services, and retail trade, but excluding public sector firms or those under regulatory price control (Greenslade and Parker 2012: F13–F14).

When asked how prices for their main product were determined, 68% of firms said that competitors’ prices were “very important” or “important” in determining price (Greenslade and Parker 2012: F9).

The second most important explanation was mark-up pricing, with variable mark-ups (58%) and constant mark-ups (44%) both being important (Greenslade and Parker 2012: F10).

Downward (1999, Chapter 8) presents a survey of 283 UK manufacturing enterprises (Downward 1999: 150–151). When asked whether the firm set its prices for its products by means of a mark-up on average costs, 63.7% of firms said either “very often” (29.9%) or “often” (33.8%). A further 17.3% said “sometimes.” Only 7% said “rarely,” and only 8.1% said “not at all” (Downward 1999: 160).

Keeney et al. (2010) report the results of a survey of 1000 Irish firms and finds that the largest type of pricing is mark-up pricing at 44% of firms. Other evidence from their paper, presented in my post here, suggests that the real percentage is higher than this, since when firms were asked how likely it was that they would adjust prices downwards in response to a negative demand shock, 66.5% of firms said that negative demand shocks were of little or no relevance to pricing decisions.

Apel et al. (2005) provide data on price setting behaviour in Sweden, from a survey of about 600 private sector firms (Apel et al. 2005: 314) weighted to create a more representative sample of the Swedish economy (Apel et al. 2005: 316), but their study fails to directly ask firms how they set price.

Interestingly, when asked why they leave prices unchanged in response to small changes in demand, many firms said “it is better to leave the price unchanged as long as the costs do not change” (Apel et al. 2005: 323), which gives some support to the view that mark-up pricing is important.

Ólafsson et al. (2011) cite a survey of 580 Icelandic firms and finds that mark-up pricing is the largest type of pricing at 45%. Evidence suggests that more mark-up prices are concealed in the other categories in the survey, so that the real percentage is higher than this.

(6) Netherlands

Literature:
Hoeberichts, Marco and Ad Stokman. 2006. “Price Setting Behaviour in the Netherlands: Results of a Survey,” ECB Working Paper Series No 607 (April)
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp607.pdf

Hoeberichts and Stokman (2006) (reprinted with some changes in Hoeberichts and Stokman 2007) report the results of a survey conducted in May 2004, with 1,246 responses from firms, mainly in the Dutch manufacturing and services sectors (Hoeberichts and Stokman 2006: 7–8).

Of all firms surveyed, 59.3% reported that they used mark-up prices, with variable mark-up being the most widely used form (at 35.4%).

Lünnemann and Mathä (2006) report the results of a survey on price setting behaviour in Luxembourg (see also Lünnemann and Mathä 2007).

The survey was conducted by the Banque centrale du Luxembourg in the second half of 2004 and involved responses from 367 firms in the construction, industry, services, trade and retail trade sectors, and the replies were adjusted to be representative of the Luxembourg economy as a whole (Lünnemann and Mathä 2006: 7–8).

Although the survey does not ask firms directly if they use mark-up pricing, there is a considerable amount of indirect evidence that this form of pricing is prevalent.

(8) Belgium

Literature:
Aucremanne, Luc and Martine Druant. 2005. “Price-Setting Behaviour in Belgium. What can be learned from an ad hoc Survey?,” ECB Working Paper Series No. 448
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp448.pdf

Aucremanne and Druant (2005) report the results of a survey of price setting behaviour by Belgian firms (see also Aucremanne and Druant 2007).

The survey was conducted in 2004 by the National Bank of Belgium and involved 1,979 firms in the industrial, construction, trade and services sectors, in a sample that should represent about 60% of Belgian GDP (Aucremanne and Druant 2005: 8, 10).

Fabiani et al. (2006: 18, Table 4) use the data from the survey and estimate that the number of firms using mark-up pricing is about 46%.

(9) Germany

Literature:
Stahl, Harald. 2005. “Price Setting in German Manufacturing: New Evidence from New Survey Data,” ECB Working Paper Series No. 561
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=868433

Loupias and Ricart (2004) report the results of a survey on price setting behaviour by French firms (see also Loupias and Ricart 2007).

The survey was conducted during the winter of 2003–2004 by the Banque de France and involved 1,662 manufacturing firms (Loupias and Ricart 2004: 8).

Though mark-up pricing is reported only at 36.9% of firms, it seems clear that the “competitors’ prices” category in the survey conceals other mark-up prices too, as mark-up pricing firms which follow “price leaders” often tend to report their pricing strategy in this category (as the evidence from Ireland and Norway suggests).

Kwapil, Baumgartner and Scharler (2005) report the results of a survey of price setting behaviour by Austrian firms (with a summary in Kwapil, Baumgartner and Scharler 2007).

The survey was conducted in January 2004 by the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) and 873 firms participated, which were mainly in the manufacturing and manufacturing-related services sectors, and often producing intermediate goods (Kwapil, Baumgartner and Scharler 2005: 9–11).

Firms were asked to rank 11 different theories of why prices are generally inflexible, and cost-based pricing was ranked the third most important theory.

Álvarez and Hernando (2005) report the results of a survey conducted by a private company between May and September 2004 using a questionnaire prepared by the Banco de España, which involved 2,008 firms from the manufacturing, energy, trade, hotel and restaurant, transport and communications sectors (Álvarez and Hernando 2005: 8). These sectors represent about 51.3% of Spanish Gross Value Added (GVA) (Álvarez and Hernando 2005: 8).

While the survey fails to ask firms whether they use mark-up pricing, nevertheless the results strongly suggest that this form of price setting is important: for example, the survey results indicate that changes in costs of production are the main cause of price increases (Álvarez and Hernando 2005: 36). Moreover, Fabiani et al. (2006: 18, Table 4) report that the percentage of Spanish firms using mark-up pricing is 52% (though it is unclear where this data comes from).

Martins (2005) reports the results of a survey on price setting behaviour of firms in Portugal conducted between May and September 2004 by the Banco de Portugal, which involved 1,370 Portuguese firms, mainly from manufacturing (Martins 2005: 6).

Unfortunately, the survey did not ask firms directly if and how frequently they used mark-up pricing. Nevertheless, Fabiani et al. (2006: 18, Table 4) use the data from the survey and estimate that the number of firms using mark-up pricing is about 65%.

Aucremanne, Luc and Martine Druant. 2005. “Price-Setting Behaviour in Belgium. What can be learned from an ad hoc Survey?,” ECB Working Paper Series No. 448
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp448.pdf

Hoeberichts, Marco and Ad Stokman. 2006. “Price Setting Behaviour in the Netherlands: Results of a Survey,” ECB Working Paper Series No 607 (April)
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp607.pdf